Post #18,706
11/18/01 8:03:56 PM
|
Question to all.
Do you think our success in Afghanistan has made it:
a) less likely that the US will see more acts of terrorism on its own soil
b) more likely that the US will see more acts of terrorsim on its own soil
c) has had no effect on the likelihood that the US will see more acts of terrorism on its own soil?
(Unrelated aside: interesting comments from Kuwaiti students on the McCBS infotainment 60 minutes tonight. For roughly 1/2 of them, we're not the Good Guys (tm) we used to be).
|
Post #18,710
11/18/01 8:26:30 PM
|
Counting our chickens already?
The war's not over. We still haven't got bin Laden.
And then comes the cleanup. Actually governing the place in such as way as to end the threat it poses.
And what of Iraq?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #18,748
11/19/01 9:37:24 AM
|
So, are we just to remain ever vigil? And if so, ...
what are we fighting for? Do we have to destroy a way of life in order to protect it?
|
Post #18,756
11/19/01 10:41:30 AM
|
I forget who said it, but
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
seems to be an appropriate quote here
~~~)-Steven----
"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..."
General George S. Patton
|
Post #18,781
11/19/01 11:53:05 AM
|
Eternal vigiliance is the price of freedom.
Well, it is.
And what's this way of life stuff? I'm not aware of anything in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution about the right to complacency.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #18,815
11/19/01 2:06:26 PM
|
Not complacency.
But clearly the PATRIOT Act violates the Bill of Rights.
|
Post #18,837
11/19/01 3:35:34 PM
|
That may well be.
It doesn't follow that every single complaint against it is a valid one.
This is why we have separation of powers, and a judicial branch. There will be lawsuits, and then the system will go into action. Slow, grinding, ponderous and inefficient justice, its worn cogs laboring against the friction of politics and the delaying tactics of amoral lawyers. But enough about the Microsoft case.
It's not all I would wish for. But it's the best system anyone has ever been able to come up with. And it beats the hell out of Islamic fundamentalism, or anything the Left has managed to come up with. So let's do our best to defend it for now. It's all we've got.
But should the Justice Fairy ever visit me and leave blueprints for a more efficient and reliable system under my pillow, I will of course alter my stance accordingly.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #18,786
11/19/01 12:06:14 PM
|
Definately A.
However; now that we are "negotiating" from a position of strength, we must maintain our level of military preparedness even after this initial phase is over. And we must NOT go soft. Had we tried to do anything but what we did in Afghanistan up to this point, the "terrorist world" would have looked at it as weakness (and business as usual for the coward "great satan"). The speed with which we brought a well trained mercenary force in highly inhospitable geography to its knees must send out a clear message to the "First Wave" armies throughout the world... Don't mess with us. We have technology and we don't need numbers. As far as the technologically advanced terrorists, they'll now have to look a little harder for a place that will give them room and board.
I'm not sure that there isn't some bozo left laying around here in the States (or 2 or 20 or 200) that have access to tactical nukes either... That's why it's critical for us to stay very alert and to deny the shit out of every suspicious foreign visa holding "guests" "civil rights". This whole cacaphony of "civil rights" nonsense will be quickly silenced WHEN the next terrorist bombing occurs. In fact, these same people will be complaining that the "government" wasn't protecting it's people, etc... I'm willing to bet, any takers? These folks must still be in a state of denial about what happened in New York on September 11 and are still grasping onto the notion that members of these terrorists organizations can be appeased by the same type of ass kissing that leaders of puppet regimes have fallen for. It's a new world. We either deal through strength or invite terrorists groups to have a field day...
Just my take. As always, I could be wrong.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,805
11/19/01 1:19:28 PM
|
Certainly you're going to find some idiots...
who's blame the government for "not being there". Not much of a proof there.
Of course, you can find the same idiots blaming the government for "not being there" Sept. 11th. (Most of them are also chanting about how we need to have less "rights" to be safe. I won't describe what I think of them.)
I concur that we need a strong military. It was foolish, imo, to argue that the military's sole use was to protect us from the Communists; for when they left, the argument was why keep the military.
However, strength alone is NOT the answer - nor will it protect us. We must also change our foreign relations. What did that Kuwait guy say?: You are the strongest nation, yet you have the worst foreign policy.
(For the record - I think Clinton failed here as well.)
|
Post #18,841
11/19/01 4:01:33 PM
|
I saw that last night...
and it made me madder than hell. I wish our foreign policy would have been appeasement to Hussein as well :-)... As the other gentleman said, "We need you a hell of a lot more than you need us"... So true.
These folks seem to think that if we'd be willing to let them massacre Israel, then the world would be a better place. Again, the final solution... Again, the hypocracy of the religions that sprang from the same well - judaism.
Strength alone is not the answer, but I would submit that neither is appeasement to the Arab world.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
|
Post #18,853
11/19/01 5:33:41 PM
|
You're really reading in there...
Strength alone is not the answer, but I would submit that neither is appeasement to the Arab world.
Who said anything about appeasement?
These folks seem to think that if we'd be willing to let them massacre Israel, then the world would be a better place. Again, the final solution... Again, the hypocracy of the religions that sprang from the same well - judaism.
Flip side of the coin - just because the religions sprang from judaism, are we to tolerate their behavior no matter what? We flip out that China gain Nuclear Weapon information through espionage...yet Israel did the same thing. When was the last time China attacked one of ships? Killed our men? (Compare it to Israel) In the middle east, as far as the US is concerned, there are two jewels. One is Israel, who can do no wrong. The other is Saudia Arabia, who, as long as it behaves itself, we'll tolerate for oil. Frankly, I do not consider that to be a well-balanced foreign policy.
|
Post #18,967
11/20/01 1:13:26 PM
|
We've never had a Foreign Policy.
Just a stream of reactions to "threats" real or imagined.
Arguably, the closest may have been President Carter, with the Camp David accords.
|
